Head-to-head comparisons

ABSTRACT

Providing a comparison of a set of similar items includes: receiving from a first member of an online community a selection of a stored prior comparison created by another online community member of a set of similar items; providing to the first member a template for the comparison, the template being at least partially pre-populated using data from the stored prior comparison created by the other online community member; and receiving from the first member a submission of the comparison, wherein the comparison includes one or more modifications as made by the first member to the template.

CROSS REFERENCE TO OTHER APPLICATIONS

This application is a continuation of co-pending U.S. patent applicationSer. No. 11/529,871 (Attorney Docket No. P4139US1), entitledHEAD-TO-HEAD COMPARISONS filed Sep. 29, 2006 which is incorporatedherein by reference for all purposes.

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

In the context of online stores, a user or potential customer of thestore typically has for a particular type or class of item multipledifferent models from which to select. Different models may differ, forexample, by available features, prices, manufacturers, etc. In somecases, administrators of an online store may provide comparisons offeatures and/or prices for different models of the same type of item toaid a user in the selection of a particular item. Such administratorsupplied comparisons, however, typically do not include reviews onindividual items and/or user feedback on items. A user of an onlinestore may have access to reviews and/or feedback posted by others onindividual items, but the user typically would have to expend timereading and sifting through the reviews for each individual item from aset of similar items under consideration to gain a sense of the pros andcons of each item. A single review and/or comparison of different modelsof the same type of item may exist from third parties (e.g., other websites, magazine articles, etc.). However, a user or potential customerof the online store would have to locate such a review and/or comparisonexternally from the online store. It would be useful for a user of anonline store to have access within an online store to side-by-sidecomparisons and reviews on a plurality of items of the same type. Inaddition, when making a decision on which item to select, e.g., forpurchase, it might be useful to the user to receive, from someone whohas knowledge and/or expertise on the type of item and who is not anemployee or affiliate of the online store who may have an interest inselling an item and possibly not the best interests of the user inconsideration, a recommendation on the best item in a set of similaritems available at the online store.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

Various embodiments of the invention are disclosed in the followingdetailed description and the accompanying drawings.

FIG. 1 illustrates an embodiment of an interface used to create ahead-to-head comparison.

FIG. 2 illustrates an embodiment of a process for creating ahead-to-head comparison.

FIG. 3 illustrates an embodiment of a process for storing a head-to-headcomparison.

FIG. 4 illustrates an embodiment of a process for providing one or morehead-to-head comparisons to a user of an online store.

FIG. 5 illustrates an embodiment of a head-to-head comparison providedto a user of an online store.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION

The invention can be implemented in numerous ways, including as aprocess, an apparatus, a system, a composition of matter, a computerreadable medium such as a computer readable storage medium or a computernetwork wherein program instructions are sent over optical orcommunication links. In this specification, these implementations, orany other form that the invention may take, may be referred to astechniques. A component such as a processor or a memory described asbeing configured to perform a task includes both a general componentthat is temporarily configured to perform the task at a given time or aspecific component that is manufactured to perform the task. In general,the order of the steps of disclosed processes may be altered within thescope of the invention.

A detailed description of one or more embodiments of the invention isprovided below along with accompanying figures that illustrate theprinciples of the invention. The invention is described in connectionwith such embodiments, but the invention is not limited to anyembodiment. The scope of the invention is limited only by the claims andthe invention encompasses numerous alternatives, modifications andequivalents. Numerous specific details are set forth in the followingdescription in order to provide a thorough understanding of theinvention. These details are provided for the purpose of example and theinvention may be practiced according to the claims without some or allof these specific details. For the purpose of clarity, technicalmaterial that is known in the technical fields related to the inventionhas not been described in detail so that the invention is notunnecessarily obscured.

Providing a comparison of a set of similar items is disclosed. In someembodiments, a selection of a set of similar items to be included in acomparison is received from a first member of an online community, andthe comparison is stored so that the comparison can be presented to asecond member of the online community when an indication is receivedthat the comparison is of interest to the second member.

In some embodiments, a “head-to-head comparison” includes a comparisonand/or review of a plurality of similar items or products. Such ahead-to-head comparison may be useful, for example, to someoneinterested in purchasing a particular type of item but uncertain aboutwhich specific product to purchase. A head-to-head comparison can aid inmaking a decision about which item in a set of like items is the best orthe best for a particular purpose or value.

Allowing members of a relevant community, e.g., an online community(such as users of an online store), to create or define head-to-headcomparisons that can be provided to other members of the community,e.g., other users or customers of the store in the case of an onlinestore, when appropriate is disclosed. In many cases, the user communitymay represent a wealth of information about a set of similar items orproducts available, for example, from an online store (or other thirdparty), and it would be useful to be able to provide a comparison of theset of similar items to other users.

A user having some knowledge or expertise on a particular type of itemmay desire to create a head-to-head comparison that includes a pluralityof items or products of that type. The author of a head-to-headcomparison may include reviews and/or comparisons of various featuresassociated with the items that are included in the head-to-headcomparison as well as commentary on how the items differ. In someembodiments, the author may specify pros and cons of the items includedin the head-to-head comparison. In some embodiments, the author may rankthe items and/or indicate which item the author feels to be the best inthe set of items included in the head-to-head comparison. In some suchcases, the author may rank the items included in a head-to-headcomparison differently based on the intended use of the items and/or mayselect different items to be the best for different uses or underdifferent circumstances. In some embodiments, the items included in ahead-to-head comparison are similarly priced. In some embodiments, ahead-to-head comparison includes items that are differently priced, andin some such cases may include reviews that compare prices to featuresor performance. In some embodiments, similar items from differentmanufacturers are compared in a head-to-head comparison. In someembodiments, a head-to-head comparison includes multiple items from thesame manufacturer. In some embodiments, when an author selects items tobe included in a head-to-head comparison, a comparison grid includingvarious features of the items selected is automatically generated and/orpopulated from product descriptions and/or specifications available atan online store so that the author does not have to supply suchinformation when defining a head-to-head comparison. In some such cases,the author may have the ability to append to, delete from, modify, etc.,information included in the automatically generated comparison grid. Ahead-to-head comparison created by one user of an online store may beuseful to other users of the online store who are interested in theitems and/or type of items included in the head-to-head comparison andmay be presented to such an other user when an indication of interest inthe items and/or type of items included in the head-to-head comparisonis received.

FIG. 1 illustrates an embodiment of an interface used to create ahead-to-head comparison. In some embodiments, a user is provided with agraphical user interface (GUI), such as GUI 100, to create ahead-to-head comparison. The example given in FIG. 1 depicts thecreation using GUI 100 of a head-to-head comparison 102 of 24-inch LCDmonitors. A user having knowledge about such devices may create such ahead-to-head comparison and may select a plurality of comparable items(e.g., in price, size, features, etc.) to include in the head-to-headcomparison 102. GUI 100 includes various options 104 to aid a user inthe creation of a head-to-head comparison 102. For example, a user mayhave the option to browse through an associated online store to find adesired item and select an item to be included in the head-to-headcomparison 102; a user may have the option to search for a desired itemand in response to such a search be presented with one or more itemsmatching the search term(s) that can be added to the head-to-headcomparison 102 upon selection; a user may have the option to add adesired item to the head-to-head comparison 102, for instance, byidentifying the item by name, item number, or other identifier; a usermay have the option to add text (e.g., 106 and 108) to be associatedwith one or more of the items included in the head-to-head comparison102 or with the head-to-head comparison 102 as a whole; a user may havethe option to add tags or keywords to be associated with thehead-to-head comparison 102 which can be used to categorize thehead-to-head comparison 102 so that it can be retrieved and presented toother users of the online store who express interest in the items and/ortype of items included in the head-to-head comparison 102; etc.

In the example of FIG. 1, a user defining head-to-head comparison 102has selected a set of 24-inch LCD monitors from different manufacturers,included comments 106 for each item as well as comments 108 on thehead-to-head comparison 102 as a whole. For example, the user mayinclude via comments 106 and/or 108 information on the various featuresof the items, information on the expected performance of the items,reviews of the items, information on usage conditions under which one ormore of the items functions the best, information on personal experienceusing one or more of the items, a pick of the best item in the set ofitems, information on the background and/or expertise of the user toprovide credibility to the comparison, and/or any other appropriateinformation or content that supports the comparison. In someembodiments, when a user selects items to be included in head-to-headcomparison 102, a comparison chart 110 including various featuresassociated with the selected items is automatically generated and/orpopulated from product descriptions and/or specifications available atan online store and included in the head-to-head comparison 102 so thatthe user defining the head-to-head comparison 102 does not have tosupply such information. In some such cases, the user defininghead-to-head comparison 102 has the ability to add to, remove from,modify, etc., information included in chart 110 and/or has the option toremove chart 110 completely from head-to-head comparison 102. In someembodiments, the user defining head-to-head comparison 102 specifies orselects keywords or tags to be associated with and categorize thehead-to-head comparison 102 that, for example, can be used to retrievethe head-to-head comparison 102 for other users who express interest ina topic or item that matches, is associated with, and/or is related toone or more of such tags. For head-to-head comparison 102 of FIG. 1, forexample, tags such as “monitors”, “displays”, “24-inch LCD”, etc., maybe selected. Once a user has finished defining a head-to-headcomparison, in some embodiments, the user has the option to save 112 thehead-to-head comparison 102 in an archive of head-to-head comparisonsassociated with an online store so that the head-to-head comparison 102can be provided to users of the online store who express interest in anitem or type of item included in head-to-head comparison 102.

FIG. 1 illustrates one example of an interface that can be used by auser of an online store to create a head-to-head comparison.Alternatively, any other appropriate interface configuration andassociated options can be employed for the creation of a head-to-headcomparison.

FIG. 2 illustrates an embodiment of a process for creating ahead-to-head comparison. In some embodiments, process 200 is employed tocreate head-to-head comparison 102 of FIG. 1. Process 200 starts at 202at which an indication to create a head-to-head comparison is receivedfrom a user. Such an indication may be received, for example, inresponse to a selection of an option to create a new head-to-headcomparison by a user from an interface associated with an online storewith respect to which the head-to-head comparison is being created. Step202 includes providing an interface for creating a head-to-headcomparison to a user in response to receiving an indication to create ahead-to-head comparison from the user. In some embodiments, theinterface for creating a head-to-head comparison comprises a GUI, suchas GUI 100 of FIG. 1. At 204, selections of a plurality of items to beincluded in the head-to-head comparison are received from the user. Insome embodiments, a user is only allowed to select items of the sametype or class to be included in the head-to-head comparison. Forexample, a user may not be allowed to include a keyboard in ahead-to-head comparison that includes monitors. At 206, additionalinformation associated with one or more of the items selected at 204and/or the head-to-head comparison as a whole is received. In someembodiments, the additional information of 206 is at least in partprovided by the user creating the head-to-head comparison. The user, forexample, may desire to include information on the various features ofthe items, information on the expected performance of the items, reviewsof the items, information on usage conditions under which one or more ofthe items functions the best, information on personal experience usingone or more of the items, a pick of the best item in the set of items,information on the background and/or expertise of the user to providecredibility to the comparison, and/or any other appropriate informationor content that supports the comparison. In some embodiments, at 206 achart including comparisons of the various features of the itemsselected at 204 is automatically generated and/or populated from productdescriptions and/or specifications available at an online store andincluded in the head-to-head comparison so that the user defining thehead-to-head comparison does not have to supply such information, andthe user creating the head-to-head comparison may have the option toedit, modify, delete, append to, etc., such information. In variousembodiments, the additional information received at 206 may include textor other appropriate multimedia content such as images, photographs,graphics, animations, video, audio, links to other pages or sites, etc.In some embodiments, the additional information received at 206 includesone or more tags or keywords supplied by the user creating thehead-to-head comparison that are to be associated with the head-to-headcomparison and that can be used to index or categorize the head-to-headcomparison for future retrieval. At 208, an indication to save thecreated head-to-head comparison is received, and the head-to-headcomparison is stored in a retrievable manner. Process 200 subsequentlyends.

In some embodiments, process 200 is employed to create a newhead-to-head comparison from scratch. Alternatively, a head-to-headcomparison can be created using an existing head-to-head comparison as abaseline. That is, a user may access and use as a baseline for his/herown head-to-head comparison a head-to-head comparison created by anotheruser and/or other third party. In some embodiments, an existinghead-to-head comparison can be modified or updated by the user whocreated the head-to-head comparison. For example, when a user logs intohis/her online store user account, the user may have the option toaccess one or more head-to-head comparisons created by the user, e.g.,to update and/or modify the head-to-head comparison. In someembodiments, the prices included in an automatically generated chart offeatures of the items included in a head-to-head comparison may beautomatically updated when changes to one or more of the prices occur. Ahead-to-head comparison may be created, such as using process 200, byany internal or external user of an online store, such as an employee,administrator, shopper, user browsing through the online store, etc.Once a head-to-head comparison has been created, it can be presented toany user of the online store who expresses interest in a topicassociated with the head-to-head comparison and/or one or more of theitems or types of items associated with the head-to-head comparison. Insome embodiments, a user can externally link to a head-to-headcomparison, for example, on a blog or personal web site, and/or includea link to a head-to-head comparison in an email or other type ofelectronic message.

FIG. 3 illustrates an embodiment of a process for storing a head-to-headcomparison. In some embodiments, process 300 is employed at 208 ofprocess 200 of FIG. 2. Process 300 starts at 302 at which an indicationto save a head-to-head comparison is received. At 304, a set of one ormore tags or keywords are determined for the head-to-head comparison. Insome embodiments, the user creating the head-to-head comparison suppliesone or more tags for the head-to-head comparison, such as at 206 ofprocess 200 of FIG. 2. In some embodiments, the user creating thehead-to-head comparison is prompted for tags at 304. In someembodiments, the content of the head-to-head comparison is parsed toautomatically extract one or more applicable tags. In some embodiments,one or more tags associated with the items included in the head-to-headcomparison are included in the set of tags to be associated with thehead-to-head comparison. At 306, the set of one or more tags determinedat 304 are presented to the user creating the head-to-head comparisonfor editing. The user may select all or a subset of the presented tags,may modify one or more of the tags, may add to the set of presentedtags, etc., for example, based on the relevance of the various tags tothe topic associated with and/or items or type of items included in thehead-to-head comparison. In some embodiments, step 306 is optional. Insome embodiments, the user is not provided with the set of tags to beassociated with the head-to-head comparison for editing, unless, forexample, an indication is expressly received from the user to edit theset of tags to be associated with the head-to-head comparison. At 308,the set of tags determined at 304 and/or selected by the user creatingthe head-to-head comparison at 306 are associated with the head-to-headcomparison (e.g., in metadata associated with the head-to-headcomparison), and the head-to-head comparison is stored in a searchabledatabase. Process 300 subsequently ends.

FIG. 4 illustrates an embodiment of a process for providing one or morehead-to-head comparisons to a user of an online store. In someembodiments, a head-to-head comparison is presented to a user when theuser expresses interest in a topic associated with, items or types ofitems included in, and/or tags associated with the head-to-headcomparison. Process 400 begins at 402 at which one or more indicationsof interest in one or more topics, items, and/or types of items arereceived, for example, from current and/or past activity of a userwithin the online store. Such indications of interest may be received at402, for example, when the user views, browses, and/or navigates toparticular pages (e.g., product detail pages) or category pages (i.e.pages associated with particular topics) of the online store; when theuser searches for one or more items using associated keywords; when theuser expresses an intention to purchase one or more items or types ofitems, for example, by adding items to his/her online cart; when theuser expresses interest in other content associated with the onlinestore; etc. In some embodiments, one or more tags associated with itemsor content (e.g., particular pages, other head-to-head comparisons,etc.) and/or keywords used to search for items that a user is interestedin are used to identify the items or types of items that are of interestto the user and to find relevant head-to-head comparisons for the user,e.g., head-to-head comparisons that have the same or similar tags orkeywords. In some embodiments, in addition to and/or instead ofreceiving one or more indications of interest at 402, past browsingand/or purchasing history of the user are considered to determine theuser's interests. At 404, based upon the one or more indicationsreceived at 402 of the topics, items, and/or types of items currently ofinterest to the user and/or based upon the past interests of the user,one or more appropriate head-to-head comparisons are selected, e.g.,from an archive or database of head-to-head comparisons available at theonline store. At 406, one or more of the head-to-head comparisonsdetermined at 404 are presented to the user for consideration. In someembodiments, when a head-to-head comparison is presented to a user, suchas at 406, it is rendered with an associated interface that provides theuser with one or more appropriate options, such as options to buy itemsincluded in the head-to-head comparison, an option to vote for an itemincluded in the head-to-head comparison, an option to vote for thehead-to-head comparison, options to review the items included in thehead-to-head comparison and/or to review the head-to-head comparison,options to view reviews of items included in the head-to-head comparisonand/or reviews of the head-to-head comparison by others, options toview, vote for, and/or edit tags associated with the head-to-headcomparison, etc. Process 400 subsequently ends.

As described above with respect to process 400, head-to-head comparisonsmay be surfaced for users of an online store in various mannersdepending on a user's current and/or past activity with respect to theonline store. For example, consider a user interested in monitors. Whenan indication is received that the user is interested in monitors (e.g.,because the user has navigated to a page associated with monitors,because the user has searched for terms related to monitors, because theuser has expressed interest in other items related to monitors and/orwith which monitors can be used, because the user has expressed interestin content associated with monitors, because the user has added amonitor or an item related to a monitor or with which a monitor can beused to the user's online cart, because the user has been interested inmonitors in the past, for example, based on the user's past purchasehistory or browsing history, etc.), one or more head-to-head comparisonsassociated with monitors may be provided to the user for consideration.Presumptions of a user's interests can be derived from multiple suchindications so that possibly more pertinent head-to-head comparisons canbe provided to the user. For example, if a user has searched for“monitors” and has viewed and/or purchased products from Apple in thepast, one or more head-to-head comparisons that include monitors fromApple (such as head-to-head comparison 102 of FIG. 1) may be presentedto the user for consideration. Thus, in some embodiments, head-to-headcomparisons are presented to a user based upon all or a subset ofinformation known about a user which may be based upon current and/orpast indications of the user's activity with respect to the onlinestore. In some embodiments, additional information known about a user,such as demographic information obtained about the user from when theuser registered for a user account with the online store may be employedin the selection of head-to-head comparisons to be provided to the user.

FIG. 5 illustrates an embodiment of a head-to-head comparison providedto a user of an online store. In some embodiments, head-to-headcomparison 500 is provided at 406 of process 400 of FIG. 4. A userpresented with a head-to-head comparison 500 can view images of theitems included in the head-to-head comparison 500, read the commentaryor other information provided by the creator of head-to-head comparison500, and/or view information of various features of the items includedin head-to-head comparison 500 in chart 502, if such a chart is includedin a head-to-head comparison. In some embodiments, a head-to-headcomparison 500 comprises an interface through which a user can interact.In the given example, for instance, a user presented with head-to-headcomparison 500 can choose to purchase an item included in head-to-headcomparison 500 via an associated “BUY” button. In some embodiments asdepicted in the given example, a user presented with a head-to-headcomparison 500 has the option to vote 504 for a best item included inhead-to-head comparison 500 and/or view the distribution of votes byusers across all items included in head-to-head comparison 500. Althoughnot illustrated in FIG. 5, a user may have the option to view reviewsfrom others users of the head-to-head comparison 500 and/or of the itemsincluded in head-to-head comparison 500, and/or the user may have theoption to provide a review of the head-to-head comparison 500 and/or oneor more of the items included in head-to-head comparison 500.

As depicted in the example of FIG. 5, in some embodiments, a userpresented with a head-to-head comparison has the option to vote on theusefulness of the head-to-head comparison so that a usefulness score canbe presented with the head-to-head comparison to indicate the popularityof the head-to-head comparison among users of the online store. In thegiven example, the usefulness score 506 of head-to-head comparison 500is presented using a five star system, and head-to-head comparison 500has a usefulness score 506 of four out of five stars. In someembodiments, head-to-head comparisons that are selected to be presentedto a user (e.g., at 404 and/or 406 of process 400 of FIG. 4) arefiltered based on their usefulness score so that one or more of the mostpopular head-to-head comparisons are presented to a user forconsideration. The usefulness score of a head-to-head comparison isbased at least in part on user feedback via voting. In some embodiments,the usefulness score of a head-to-head comparison is based at least inpart on the reputation of the author of the head-to-head comparison. Forexample, statistics about the author's purchase history, such as whetherthe author has purchased one or more items included in the head-to-headcomparison, may be employed in the determination of the usefulness scoreof the head-to-head comparison. Other statistics about the author suchas the number of head-to-head comparisons created by the author, theaverage usefulness score of the head-to-head comparisons created by theauthor, how often the author purchases items included in thehead-to-head comparisons created by the author, etc., may be tracked andemployed in the computation of the usefulness score of a particularhead-to-head comparison. For instance, if two potential head-to-headcomparisons that can be provided to a user (such as determined at 404 ofprocess 400 of FIG. 4) have the same usefulness score based on feedbackvia voting and only one of the two head-to-head comparisons is to beprovided to the user (such as at 406 of process 400 of FIG. 4), knownstatistics about the authors of the head-to-head comparisons may be usedto further weight the head-to-head comparisons and select thehead-to-head comparison to be provided. In some embodiments, theusefulness score associated with a head-to-head comparison is storedwith the head-to-head comparison. In some embodiments, the usefulnessscore of a head-to-head comparison is periodically updated. In someembodiments, the usefulness score associated with a head-to-headcomparison is dynamically updated whenever a user votes on theusefulness of the head-to-head comparison. Although a five star ratingsystem has been illustrated in the example of FIG. 5, any otherappropriate manner to present a usefulness score, such as providing thepercentage of users who found a head-to-head comparison to be useful,may be provided with a head-to-head comparison in various embodiments.

In some embodiments, a user can vote on the usefulness of the tags orkeywords associated with a head-to-head comparison. In some embodiments,a head-to-head comparison may be selected to be provided to a user(e.g., at 404 of process 400 of FIG. 4) based on one or more of the mostpopular tags associated with the head-to-head comparison and the extentto which the most popular tags associated with the head-to-headcomparison relate to the interests of the user. In some embodiments, auser has the option to add tags or keywords to be associated with ahead-to-head comparison. By allowing users of an online store to provideinput with respect to tag or keywords, better categorization ofhead-to-head comparisons associated with an online store may beachieved.

FIG. 5 illustrates one example of a manner in which a head-to-headcomparison 500 and associated interface can be provided to a user.Alternatively, any other appropriate configuration can be employed topresent a head-to-head comparison 500 and associated interface to a userto aid the user in the selection of one or more items or products, e.g.,for purchase.

By including facilities for head-to-head comparisons as describedherein, an online store is able to maintain a constantly evolvingarchive of head-to-head comparisons based upon the needs of the users orcustomers of the store. Furthermore, such head-to-head comparisons allowsimilar items or products of an online store to be categorized andgrouped by members of the community using the online store. Communitydriven head-to-head comparisons guide users of an online store towardspotential items of interest and highlight features of the items thatthey should consider when making a decision about which particular itemfrom a set of available similar items to select. Head-to-headcomparisons are useful for users of an online store in obtainingpotentially unbiased opinions of various items from other users of thestore. Head-to-head comparisons are also useful to administrators of anonline store. By allowing users of an online store to createhead-to-head comparisons and/or vote on items and/or review itemsincluded in the head-to-head comparisons, administrators of the onlinestore are able to extract valuable information about the preferences ofthe community, reasons why certain items are preferred over othersimilar items, trends in popularities of various items, etc. Suchinformation can be valuable from a business perspective for the onlinestore and/or the manufacturers of the items.

While many of the examples described in detail above involvehead-to-head comparisons defined by a user of an online store, thetechniques described herein may be applied as well to other contexts inwhich members of a relevant community, online or otherwise, desire toprovide a comparison of a set of similar items to other members of thecommunity. For example, users of a product comparison website,publication, or TV show, etc. and/or customers of a physical store invarious embodiments may use various of the techniques described hereinto provide head-to-head comparisons of sets of similar items to otherusers.

Although the foregoing embodiments have been described in some detailfor purposes of clarity of understanding, the invention is not limitedto the details provided. There are many alternative ways of implementingthe invention. The disclosed embodiments are illustrative and notrestrictive.

1. A method for providing a comparison, comprising: receiving from afirst member of an online community a selection of a stored priorcomparison created by another online community member of a set ofsimilar items; providing to the first member a template for thecomparison, the template being at least partially pre-populated usingdata from the stored prior comparison created by the other onlinecommunity member; and receiving from the first member a submission ofthe comparison, wherein the comparison includes one or moremodifications as made by the first member to the template.
 2. A methodas recited in claim 1, wherein at least one of the first member and theother online community member is a user of an online store.
 3. A methodas recited in claim 1, further comprising storing the submission of thecomparison received from the first member.
 4. A method as recited inclaim 1, further comprising presenting the comparison to a second memberof the online community based at least in part on an indication that thecomparison is of interest to the second member.
 5. A method as recitedin claim 4, further comprising receiving from the second member of theonline community a received input comprising one or more of amodification to a content of the comparison or an indication ofusefulness of the comparison.
 6. A method as recited in claim 5, furthercomprising updating the comparison to reflect the received input,including by modifying the comparison to reflect the modification to thecontent if the received input comprises a modification to the contentand updating displayed content associated with the comparison to reflectthe indication of usefulness if the received input includes anindication of usefulness.
 7. A method as recited in claim 1, wherein theitems included in the set are of the same type.
 8. A method as recitedin claim 1, wherein receiving from a first member of an online communitya selection of a stored prior comparison comprises receiving one or moreof the following: a review of the set of similar items, a comparison ofthe set of similar items, information on features associated with one ormore items included in the set of similar items, comments on one or moreitems included in the set of similar items, a ranking of the set ofsimilar items, and a selection of a best item in the set of similaritems.
 9. A method as recited in claim 1, wherein providing to the firstmember a template for the comparison comprises automatically generatingthe template, wherein the template comprises a chart that includes dataon one or more features associated with one or more items included inthe set.
 10. A method as recited in claim 9, wherein the chart ispopulated with data from product specifications.
 11. A method as recitedin claim 9, wherein the chart and associated data are editable by thefirst member.
 12. A method as recited in claim 3, wherein storing thecomparison comprises determining one or more tags to be associated withthe comparison.
 13. A method as recited in claim 12, wherein determiningone or more tags to be associated with the comparison comprises one ormore of the following: receiving one or more tags from the first member,prompting the first member for one or more tags, parsing the comparisonto determine one or more tags, and determining one or more tagsassociated with one or more items included in the set.
 14. A method asrecited in claim 1, wherein the comparison is stored in a searchabledatabase.
 15. A method as recited in claim 4, wherein the indication isbased at least in part on one or more of the following: current activityof the second member with respect to the online community and pastactivity of the second member with respect to the online community. 16.A method as recited in claim 4, wherein the indication comprises one ormore of the following: an indication of interest in a topic associatedwith the comparison, an indication of interest in a tag associated withthe comparison, an indication of interest in an item included in theset, an indication of interest in a class of items to which the itemsincluded in the set belong, and an indication of interest in a tagassociated with an item included in the set.
 17. A method as recited inclaim 4, wherein the indication is received in response to one or moreof the following: the second member viewing or navigating to a pageassociated with an item included in the set, the second member viewingor navigating to a page associated with a class of items to which theitems included in the set belong, the second member viewing ornavigating to a page associated with a topic associated with thecomparison, the second member conducting a search using one or moresearch terms associated with one or more items included in the set, thesecond member conducting a search using one or more search termsassociated with a topic associated with the comparison, the secondmember conducting a search using one or more search terms associatedwith a class of items to which the items included in the set belong, thesecond member adding an item included in the set to an online cart, thesecond member adding an item included in a class of items to which theitems included in the set belong to an online cart, and the secondmember adding an item similar to an item included in the set to anonline cart.
 18. A method as recited in claim 4, wherein presenting thecomparison to a second member of the online community includespresenting to the second member an option to vote on a usefulness of thecomparison.
 19. A method as recited in claim 4, further comprisingassociating a usefulness score with the comparison.
 20. A method asrecited in claim 19, wherein the second member is part of a set ofmembers to whom the comparison has been presented and wherein theusefulness score is based at least in part on votes by one or moremembers included in the set of members to whom the comparison has beenpresented.
 21. A method as recited in claim 19, wherein the usefulnessscore is based at least in part on a reputation of the first member. 22.A method as recited in claim 4, wherein presenting the comparison to asecond member of the online community includes presenting to the secondmember one or more of the following: options to purchase an item fromthe set, an option to see reviews of the comparison, an option to reviewthe comparison, an option to see reviews of one or more of the itemsincluded in the set, an option to review one or more items included inthe set, options to vote for one or more tags associated with thecomparison, and an option to add one or more tags to the comparison. 23.A method as recited in claim 1, wherein the first member is not anemployee of an online store.
 24. A system for providing a comparison,comprising: a processor configured to: receive from a first member of anonline community a selection of a stored prior comparison created byanother online community member of a set of similar items; provide tothe first member a template for the comparison, the template being atleast partially pre-populated using data from the stored priorcomparison created by the other online community member; and receivefrom the first member a submission of the comparison, wherein thecomparison includes one or more modifications as made by the firstmember to the template; and a memory coupled to the processor andconfigured to provide instructions to the processor.
 25. A system asrecited in claim 24, wherein at least one of the first member and theother online community is a user of an online store.
 26. A system asrecited in claim 24, wherein the processor is further configured topresent the comparison to a second member of the online community basedat least in part on an indication that the comparison is of interest tothe second member.
 27. A system as recited in claim 24, wherein toreceive from a first member of an online community a selection of astored prior comparison comprises to receive one or more of thefollowing: a review of the set of similar items, a comparison of the setof similar items, information on features associated with one or moreitems included in the set of similar items, comments on one or moreitems included in the set of similar items, a ranking of the set ofsimilar items, and a selection of a best item in the set of similaritems.
 28. A system as recited in claim 24, wherein to provide to thefirst member a template for the comparison comprises to automaticallygenerate a chart that includes data on one or more features associatedwith one or more items included in the set.
 29. A system as recited inclaim 26, wherein the indication is based at least in part on one ormore of the following: current activity of the second member withrespect to the online community and past activity of the second memberwith respect to the online community.
 30. A system as recited in claim24, wherein the processor is further configured to associate ausefulness score with the comparison.
 31. A computer program product forproviding a comparison, the computer program product being embodied in acomputer readable medium and comprising computer instructions for:receiving from a first member of an online community a selection of astored prior comparison created by another online community member of aset of similar items; providing to the first member a template for thecomparison, the template being at least partially pre-populated usingdata from the stored prior comparison created by the other onlinecommunity member; and receiving from the first member a submission ofthe comparison, wherein the comparison includes one or moremodifications as made by the first member to the template.